READER COMMENTS ON
"Senate Majority Invokes 'Democracy Option'"
(15 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Newman
said on 11/22/2013 @ 10:18 am PT...
The democrats need to grow a set of balls and the democrats need to get out to vote. If they keep doing nothing we are going to set this country back 100 years. The republicans got us into a depression and then almost did it again between 2001 and 2008. If it hadn't been for the social programs we would have been worse off than the first one. The majority of people voted for the democrats and expect them to get the job done.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Alex
said on 11/22/2013 @ 1:02 pm PT...
Politicians are often found to be hypicritical, but this Republican lot is far gone. Another example...
There are conservatives like George W Bush who was on Jay Leno recently who said he wants the US to stay in Afghanistan to help protect the women and girls in that country. That sounds touching and reasonable, but yet many of the same conservatives who use that ploy to argue for an extension of a military presence, are the same ones that want to maintain the status quo in the military that makes it virtually impossible for raped, sexually abused, assaulted and harassed women of our military to achieve justice for crimes committed against them. We want to protect the Afghani women, but we do not seem to care about our women. Sounds more like the Afghani women have as much to worry about from our military as from their own people.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Ancient
said on 11/23/2013 @ 6:31 am PT...
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Steve Snyder aka WingnutSteve
said on 11/23/2013 @ 12:35 pm PT...
Great quotes from the GOP senators in days past regarding filibustering of judges. I wonder what circumstances gave us those remarks? In the case of Graham and McConnell it was, hold on to your hat here, Harry Reid led filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. In fact, old Harry made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor explaining just why the nuclear option would:
"If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization."
http://democrats.senate....ch-on-use-of-filibuster/
We see that the judicial nominee filibuster is not, as the President (who's a proven liar to the American people) states, unprecedented. A higher percentage of Obama Circuit Court nominees have been approved than those which were approved for Bush.
http://news.yahoo.com/ar...11;levels-001414638.html
And so now we're at the point that leftist ideologues can continue their scheme of packing the court with radical left-wing jurists. The 50% +1 people have won for now and the 50% -1 people are fucked by this unprecedented power grab of a bare majority of folks who vehemently argued against their own action just a few years ago. The Senate was designed to be the house which worked together, not in the left wing definition of the minority should acquiesce to everything, but with actual debate and compromise. This is a sad time for the ever growing number of people disillusioned with the lies and damaging policies of this administration of grifters and ponzi scheme artists.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 11/23/2013 @ 1:32 pm PT...
Our friend WingnutSteve returned @ 4!
Hi, Steve! Welcome back! You said...
Great quotes from the GOP senators in days past regarding filibustering of judges. I wonder what circumstances gave us those remarks? In the case of Graham and McConnell it was, hold on to your hat here, Harry Reid led filibusters of Bush judicial nominees.
I realize it's not a safe assumption that you already understand this, so forgive me for reiterating something you may already know. But you do realize that when Dems filibustered presidential appointees in the past, they did so because they objected to the nominee themselves for an actual reason, right? Not just because they were attempting to keep the seat from being filled by any nomination of that particular President. You do understand that, right?
So, for example, when Richard Taranto was nominated by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals in November of 2011 he was forced to wait 15 months before being finally getting an up-or-down vote in the Senate thanks to Republican obstructionism.
Why the 15 months delay for Taranto? What were the objections to him? Was he a "radical left-wing jurist" as you (foolishly) suggested elsewhere in your comments? Apparently, not. Apparently there were ZERO objections to him, other than he was nominated by this particular President. When Taranto was finally allowed an up-or-down vote in March of 2013, he received a vote in the U.S. Senate of 91 to 0.
If you can cite a similar epidemic of Democrats and "old Harry" behaving that way when they were in the minority, please feel free to share. (You won't. You never do.)
The Taranto case is not an outlier. It is the norm. Republicans filibustered one appointment after another, not because they had a problem with the nominee (at least none that they expressed), but, in contravention to the U.S. Constitution, they simply didn't want a Democratic President to fill that particular job, whether it was a seat on the federal bench, or the head of the ATF, or the head of the FHFA, or the head of the CFPB, etc. etc. etc.
Again, if you can cite an instance, much less an epidemic of same, of that having happened when Dems were in the minority, please feel free to share it. If you were unaware of the difference in the situations then and now, because you tend to follow wingnut media almost exclusively (and they lie to you and play you for a happy fool), hopefully you've been educated now and understand why they did it, should have done it long ago, and didn't even go nearly far enough in restoring the small "d" democratic balance to the Senate as designed in the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, old Harry made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor explaining just why the nuclear option would:
"If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization."
Huh. Interesting. Perhaps that's why he didn't change the rules (yet) on Supreme Court nominees or on "legislation like Social Security" (though he should, by the way) when he made those comments at a time, unlike now, when Republicans controlled majorities in the House, the Senate and the White House.
A higher percentage of Obama Circuit Court nominees have been approved than those which were approved for Bush.
http://news.yahoo.com/ar...11;levels-001414638.html
That's fun what you did there! Cherry picking is always fun! So let's look at the article you site, which reads: "Looking at all of Obama’s nominees across his administration, he has suffered unprecedented levels of obstruction."
As you probably also noticed, but didn't mention here (for some reason), Obama's district court nominations have been blocked at a higher percentage than Bush's. When both district and circuit court nominees are combined, Obama has been obstructed more than Bush.
Moreover, as the article you cite also notes: "Obama is the only president who suffered an increased vacancy during his first term without more court positions being created" and, in regard to district court nominees, "Reagan’s nominees breezed through, with just a 28-day waiting period during his first term, compared with 215 days for Obama."
When you then add Obama's Executive branch nominees to the mix, which you tried to ignore here, there's just no comparison in our entire history. Not even close, as this graf makes clear (since, maybe, you didn't notice it the first time):
And so now we're at the point that leftist ideologues can continue their scheme of packing the court with radical left-wing jurists.
It's fun that you called Harry Reid a "leftist ideologue". It's fun cuz it's so ridiculous that a "leftist ideologue" like that would have an A+ rating from the NRA, would favor fracking, etc. But let's not notice that, and respond instead to the most ridiculously uneducated piece of misinformation you included in that particular sentence.
That's their "scheme"? To "pack the court with radical left-wing jurists"? Really? Which "radical left-wing jurists" are you referring to? Because if there are any, I'm unaware of them being cited by the Republicans who have been blocking those nominations. But I'm open to your list. (You won't offer one. You never do. You always ignore questions like these. But I'm being polite and given you the opportunity to continue your years of failure in that regard here.)
The 50% +1 people have won for now and the 50% -1 people are fucked by this unprecedented power grab of a bare majority
By "unprecedented", do you mean, "exactly what the U.S. Constitution called for"? I've read the Constitution (have you?) I know there are a number of instances when a super-majority of some type is required in the U.S. Senate. None of them have to do with Presidential appointees or nominations (or even legislation, for that matter). But perhaps I missed it in there? Feel free to cite it. (You won't, of course. You'll just ignore this too.)
There are many instances in which the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority (like, say, voting rights), but the "right" for a minority of Senators to block Executive nominees to the Judiciary (even Supreme Court nominees) or to his own Executive agencies or cabinet is decidedly not one of them.
Feel free to quote otherwise, of course. (You won't.)
The Senate was designed to be the house which worked together, not in the left wing definition of the minority should acquiesce to everything, but with actual debate and compromise.
Again, please feel free to cite your explanation of how a simple majority up-or-down vote for Executive and Judicial appointees is in violation with the "Senate design". Surely you wouldn't just pull something out of Rush Limbaugh's your ass, to make an argument here without evidence to support it, right?
This is a sad time for the ever growing number of people disillusioned with the lies and damaging policies of this administration of grifters and ponzi scheme artists.
Ah, "grifters and ponzi scheme artists". You really have taken the deep dive into Rightwing "Libertarianism", eh? Fun! You've gone from reasonable Republican, to radicalized wingnut! Has been fun to watch over these past several years!
Now, get started ignoring my questions above right away!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 11/23/2013 @ 2:45 pm PT...
As Brad @5 thoroughly demolished the fact-free tirade posted by our pal, Steve Snyder aka WingNut Steve @4, I'm somewhat reluctant to pile on.
However, I think it important to note that Republican filibuster abuse with respect to nominations to the executive branch are not just unprecedented in terms of the 82 nominees blocked during Obama's first five years in office vs. the grand total of 86 for Obama's 43 predecessors combined, but in the positions that were blocked.
When Republicans filibustered the President's nomination of Chuck Hegel, it marked the first time in U.S. history that any Senator (Democratic or Republican) ever sought to filibuster someone nominated as Secretary of Defense. Republicans advanced their unprecedented filibuster at a time when this nation was still at war (Afghanistan).
I'm wondering whether Steve would go so far as to suggest that the two term Republican Senator from Nebraska was "radical left wing" or whether any of the GOP obstructionists would have had any problem with Hegel's confirmation whatsoever if he had been nominated by George W. Bush?
Moreover, prior to caving on the issue back in 2005, Democrats had filibustered some of GWB's Robert Bork-founded, right wing billionaire funded Federalist Society connected nominees for the same reason that a majority of the Senate, in and up-or-down vote rejected the Bork nomination to the Supreme Court by a 58 - 42 vote back in 1987.
The rationale for Bork's rejection, as explained by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is apropos to the reasons why Democrats opposed Bush's radical nominees:
This debate has been a timely lesson in this bicentennial year of the Constitution of our commitment to the rule of law, to the principle of equal justice for all Americans and to the fundamental role of the Supreme Court in protecting the basic rights of every citizen. In choosing Robert Bork, President Reagan has selected a nominee who is unique in fulminating opposition to fundamental constitutional principles as they are broadly understood in our society. He has expressed opposition time and again, in a long line of attacks on landmark Supreme Court decisions protecting civil rights, the rights of women, the right to privacy and other individual rights and liberties. Judge Bork may be President Reagan’s ideal ideological choice…but that choice is not acceptable to Congress and the country, and it is not acceptable in a Justice of the nation’s highest court.
No Senate Republican has argued that any of the four successive Obama administration nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeal should be reject either on ideological grounds or for lack of qualification, and with good reason.
Take Nina Pillard, regarded as "among the most accomplished Supreme Court advocates in the United States." She has argued 9 cases before the Supreme Court, briefed 25 others. In one of those cases, she wrote the Solicitor General's brief on behalf of the George H.W. Bush Administration.
So, Steve, do you now consider George Bush Sr. to be "radical left-wing"? Has the Republican Party really moved that far to the right?
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Steve Snyder aka WingnutSteve
said on 11/24/2013 @ 9:29 am PT...
I state facts to place into context the quotes ernie uses from various GOP Senators. I state facts to show that both sides have used the same tactic. I show my sources, which are the highly partisan and rightwing Yahoo News and the Democratic Senatorial floor record.
Brad responds, and thoroughly demolishes me, with his typical long winded diatribe stating opinions gleaned from various DNC/Organizing for Action talking points memo's. And then ernie follows with "Yeah!". Some things will never change....
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 11/24/2013 @ 10:15 am PT...
Re Steve Snyder aka WingnutSteve @7:
The next factual reference or link that would even remotely support your claim @4 that Democrats had ever engaged in a "scheme of packing the court with radical left-wing jurists" will be your first.
But you are right about one thing. When it comes to your predictable reaction to valid criticisms of your fact-free musings, some things never change.
The question Brad posed to you was direct and straightforward:
Which "radical left-wing jurists" are you referring to?
Why am I not surprised that, in your latest comment @7, you pointed to nary a one.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Lora
said on 11/24/2013 @ 12:44 pm PT...
Facts rule. Pay close attention, Steve. I add my invitation for you to respond to Brad and Ernie with facts of your own that refute the arguments they presented.
If you cannot find them, what does that tell you?
Brad and Ernie, thank you.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 11/24/2013 @ 3:44 pm PT...
Steve @ 7,
You've outdone yourself. That is the most profound non-answer to a thorough deconstruction of your typically lame talking points I have seen yet. That one's going into the archives.
Let me add my vote by requesting you surprise us by answering the questions Brad asked you. (House money overwhelmingly says you will not)
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 11/24/2013 @ 4:10 pm PT...
WingnutSteve said @ 7:
I state facts to show that both sides have used the same tactic.
But, you didn't. That's the prob. I asked you to do so, several times, in my reply. If Dems have done those things, have blocked judicial nominees for no reason (other than to keep a President from seating anyone on the bench) or executive nominees (for no other reason than to cripple the agency in question) please site it. That really shouldn't be difficult. It's your argument.
Short of that, it looks like you've failed spectacularly again. But, as previously, always happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. Offer the evidence to support your own argument.
I show my sources, which are the highly partisan and rightwing Yahoo News and the Democratic Senatorial floor record.
Brad responds...stating opinions gleaned from various DNC/Organizing for Action talking points memo's.
No. I quoted your own source (the Yahoo article) back to you. I didn't quote any others, and I don't receive either DNC or OFA "talking points". I'm sure it's possible I've "received" them somehow through other sources that I follow, however, which is why I asked you for the evidence to support your argument. You have, as usual, provided ZERO of that evidence in reply.
Some things will never change....
Apparently.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 11/24/2013 @ 7:54 pm PT...
Steve,
That's the way intelligent, reasoned argument goes. Someone(you, in this case) makes a series statements. You assign meaning to/derive meanings from your statements. Somebody else(in this case, Brad)challenges your statements and assigned meanings by presenting counter-arguments including evidence that you've left out, thus broadening the contexts presented and in the process thoroughly undermining/discrediting your point of view.
Weirdly whining as a response to a clinical deconstruction of your comment only makes your case appear weaker(if that were possible).
Got anything else?
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 11/25/2013 @ 12:12 pm PT...
"Brad responds, and thoroughly demolishes me" ~ WingNutSteve
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Webster
said on 12/2/2013 @ 3:17 pm PT...
We do not live in a democracy --- we live in a republic. The filibuster prevents the minority party from being bulldozed by the majority in at least one part of our government, no matter which side is in the minority.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 12/2/2013 @ 5:22 pm PT...
Webster @8 repeats the oft repeated right wing canard. "We do not live in a democracy," he proclaims. "We live in a republic."
For the framers of the U.S. Constitution, the phrase "republican form of government" are synonymous with "representative democracy."
They distinguished that from "direct" or Athenian democracy, which James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, referred to as "pure democracy" in the form of "a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person."
While we saw examples of direct democracy in the Occupy Wall Street movement, there is no nation on earth that utilizes direct democracy. The U.S. form of "republican government" does entail representative democracy.
The U.S. Constitution contains some undemocratic features --- e.g. a vote by a Senator from a rural state like Montana is equal to the vote of a Senator from a populous state, like California.
However, the Constitution does not provide for the filibuster. That legislative tool, once used only sparingly as part of a courtly arrangement to insure that the minority has an adequate opportunity for debate, was perverted into a tool for unprecedented obstruction and gridlock.
The only unfortunate feature is that Democrats limited the "democracy option" to executive and judicial appointments.